Assignment 1: Reproduce the number
Take a published FID from a real paper. Reproduce it. Explain the gap. Marked on the explanation, not on the size of the gap.
Due · Week 5
Course weight
20%
What to submit
Submit one PDF containing Parts A to C, at most four pages, and one archive holding everything needed to re-run Part A on a clean machine.
Take a number somebody published and get it back.
Choose a published FID, rebuild enough of the pipeline to compute it yourself, and report what you get beside what they got. Then account for the difference. Almost nobody closes it, and the mark is in the account rather than in the size of the gap.
Due end of week 5, which is the week that explains why the standard deviations you computed did not warn you. Deadlines, extensions and the use of generative tools are course-wide and live on the policies page.
Before you start
- Individual work. 100 points, worth 20 per cent of the course.
- Three parts. Part A is 30 points, Part B 50, Part C 20. The marking criteria on this page are those three parts.
- Generative tools are governed by the policies page. Read it before you start rather than before you submit.
- Submit one PDF containing Parts A to C, at most four pages, and one archive holding everything needed to re-run Part A on a clean machine.
Part A, the reproduction [30]
Choose a published FID from a paper of your choice. Cite the paper, the table and the page. Rebuild enough of the pipeline to compute it. Report your number beside theirs, with N and implementation stated for both.
Match what you can: the same reference set if it is obtainable, the same N if the paper states one, the same instrument weights if you can find them. Where you cannot match, that is Part B’s material rather than a failure.
Part B, the account [50]
Every difference between your setup and theirs, named. Where the paper does not say, state what you assumed and why.
This part is marked on completeness and honesty, not on the size of the gap. A submission that closes the gap and cannot say how is worth less than one that misses by a wide margin and can account for every step of it. The strongest submissions are the ones where the assumptions are visible: what could not be determined from the paper, what was assumed in its place, and roughly what each assumption could be worth.
Part C, the comparison [20]
Was your comparison N-honest? If it was not, say what it would take to make it so, and what that would cost.
In person
Ten minutes, week 6, at the codewalk, which carries the day, the rooms and the booking. You bring the PDF and the archive. We pick one difference from Part B and ask you to defend it. Bring your ID.
Supporting experiment / Workspace
Rehearse the comparison before reproducing a paper.
01 Predict
Starting from identical pixels, what do you expect compression to change in the measured features and score?
02 Open the lab
Image lab / pixels to featuresCompare the supplied identity and JPEG modes. For a separate trial, choose 2–8 local images and change only one candidate crop or filter setting.
03 Record
Keep the reference and candidate counts, encoder identity, preprocessing and selected candidate mode with each run. Export the measurement record if you need to retain it.
04 Result
Put the before-and-after scores beside the precise pixel intervention. Explain what the comparison isolates and what it leaves coupled.
05 Explain the limitation
This is preparation, not a reproduction of a published result. A1 still requires the cited paper, an account of setup differences and the rerunnable archive specified in the brief.
Keep this supporting experiment distinct from the task above. Workspace use and reporting guidance →
Submission review
Spec
The brief poses the problem and leaves room for a response. The spec is the fixed part: what a marker checks. Some lines can be checked mechanically; the rest call for judgement.
Tick each requirement after reviewing your evidence. These ticks record your review, not a grade or confirmation that the requirement is met.
Without JavaScript, ticks last until you leave this page.
How it is marked
| Criterion | Weight |
|---|---|
| The reproduction attempt, pinned and repeatable | 30% |
| Explanation of the discrepancy | 50% |
| N-honesty of the comparison | 20% |